UNITED ACTION. RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN SCHOOLS.

Evening Post, Volume LXXX, Issue 5, 6 July 1910, Page 2

UNITED ACTION. RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN SCHOOLS.

REMARKS BY THE BISHOP OF WELLINGTON.

Dnrmg the course of his address to the Diocesan Synod yesterday, Bishop Wallis spoke on religious instruction in State schools. He said that the General Synod signified its approval of the New South W/aies Education Act, which pre- | scribes that Bible teaching shall be given in all the State schools in the ordinary cour.se of lessons by the State teachers — it would be necessary, of course, to add a conscience clause for both teachers and pupils — and allows the giving of special religious instruction during school hours by the clergy or the accredited teachers of such religious bodies as shall arrange to give this instruction. "You will have seen that this proposal was submitted by a referendum to the people of Queensland, and that it was carried by a majority, I think, of 52 per cent of the voters. Whether the Parliament of that State is prepared to give legislative effect to this determination, wo cannot now tell. But I am absolutely certain that no such enactment will be placed upon the statute-book of this Dominion without a tremendous straggle, and that unless we are prepared to face an arduous and protratced campaign we had better abandon the £ftort, and try to remedy the present terrible evil as best we can by improving and extending our Sunday schools ana Bible classes. . . . But are we really in earnest about this matter? If ft becomes clear that we are, there are a few suggestions which I desire to offer." In the first place, he said, resolutions of Synod, petitions and informal plebiscites, are, of no value whatever, unless tfcey arc followed by further action. we feave tried them all, and are no nearer success than before." THis was sm\ply because people did not care eviemgh at present about the matter to let it affect their votes at Parliamentary elections. Some years ago it was not an uncommon thing for a candidate to be asked at his meotings whether he was 1 ourable to Bible teaching in schools. So far as he could gather from the newspapers, this question has practically ceased to be put. He was absent from the Dominion at the last election, but he reminded Synod of a report presented to General Synod the year before, by a committee which stated that the position had not been improved by the general election of November, 1905; on the contrary, fche present Government and Parliament were less favourable to the moveirtent than were their predecessors. The Government had definitely refused to introduce a Bible-in-Schools Referendum Bill ; and whereas in the last Parliament they could count upon 'a majority in favour of such a Bill, in the present Parliament they could not count upon more than thirty supporters. And yet, continued Bishop Wallis, plebiscites taken in several typical town and country districts have shown con-, siderable majorities in favour of the teaqMng of the Bible by. State teachers in State schools. But, as the committee reported, "while it is probably true that a majority of the people are in favour of some kind of religions teaching in the State schools, they do not sufficiently realise the importance of the question to give it precedence of all others at a general election ; and until _ they do thus realise its importance, neither the present or any other scheme has the slightest chance of success. Were they prepared to form associations of persons pledged to vote only for those candidates who were in favour of the proposed scheme, unless — he himself was of opinion that the reservation was necessary — they were solemnly convinced that even graver issues were at stake ? This was a very Berious proposal,- were they willing to adopt it? "Secondly," said his lordship, "we shall not succeed — we do not wish to succeed — without the continued co-operation of members of other Churches, particularly our Presbyterian brothers, wfio are closely joined to us by many bonds, and have shown at least as real a devotion to this cause as ourselves. We must hold conferences with these our former allies, and also with representatives of the Roman Catholic Church 1 , not only because their opposition, if it be repeated, will be a serious hindrance to the success of the scheme, but chiefly because the sacrifices they have made for the establishment and maintenance of their own schools, unaided by any grant, from thb State, justly claim our most sympathetic consideration. I do not imagine that they will be favourable to the giving of Bible lessons by State school teachers under any conditions, bat they may be willing to accept the other part of our proposal, namely, that clergy of various denominations be permitted to give special religious instruction during school hours. "Lastly, we are told that the fatal objection to our scheme is that its adoption is certain to provoke sectarian strife. Now, while we hope to escape strong and sustained opposition from the secularist quarter, I do not myself* anticipate any serious conflict amongst brother Christians. But, granted that my forecast is in error, we must bear in mind that conflict, evfl as it is, is not the worst evil. Ignorance of God, unbelief and wickedness, are worse ; so also are lethargy, paralysis, and death. If toleration is a virtue at all, it is the easiest of all virtues for those who have no convictions of their own ; often it is not far removed from the frontier of vice. In these days we must continually remind ourselves that the absence of opposition is no certain proof that the Kingdom of God is spreading. It was the Prince of Peace himself, who said, 'Think ye that I am' come to bring peace on the earth? I tell ye Nay; but rather division.' And tlaia teaching was in the mind of ex-President Roosevelt when he said two months ago, 'Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaid of righteousness. "'